The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. A cleanup is necessary here, especially since the title of this page duplicates the title of another page, namely
List of timelines in fiction. Fictional timelines should go to
List of timelines in fiction, whereas this page should be renamed "Chronology of Fictional Works", and should contain chronologies related to the publication of works of fiction only.
Joe Gatt (
talk)
22:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose My alternate suggestion instead: This is not for chronologies of fictional works, this is for fictional chronologies from work of fiction . A real chronology of works of fiction can be a publication history. The works themselves are not fictional, unlike works within fiction such as The Grasshopper Lies Heavy ( a fictional work of fiction ) or Chuck Shurley's Supernatural ( a fictional historical work in a work of fiction ), it is for works of fiction that exist in reality like Star Trek;
Category:Fictional chronologies for works of fiction should solve the problems. OR the alternate suggestion above
Category:Timelines of fictional events is also acceptable to me. --
67.70.35.44 (
talk)
07:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)reply
What is the point of having two pages for the same thing, namely
Category:Fictional timelines and
List of timelines in fiction ? What is the difference between the two ? I am not trying to destroy the "in-world fictional timelines" ! But why have two duplicate pages for it, and NONE for the non-fictional evolution of fictional lore ? In my opinion the evolution of fictional lore deserves a place on Wikipedia too.
In my opinion, fictional chronologies from work of fiction should indeed have their own category page, of course.
List of timelines in fiction should be a category page in its own right. And the evolution of fictional lore likewise also deserves its own category page, in my opinion. The academic study of literature and art is based on its chronological development and evolution, after all.
Or perhaps, one could maybe even consider starting a wikiproject in respect to the development and evolution of fictional lore. Why not?
Joe Gatt (
talk)
00:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I have carried out the above stated exercise successfully, regarding the creation of a new category for artistic works chronologies, and accordingly I would like to respectfully withdraw my original request to rename
Category:Fictional timelines. Best regards to all participants of this interesting discussion.
Joe Gatt (
talk)
23:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Joe Gatt: I think the newly titled category it problematic too on several fronts. First, there is no
Category:Chronologies category – it's useful to tie a category into a descending tree;
Category:Timelines is more usefulinstead. Second, non-proper nouns aren't capitalised in categories (neither in article headings). Third and most importantly, I don't think it successfully distinguishes the two – I think a "chronology of a fictional work" could be interpreted as the chronology in a fictional work. It was on this basis that I proposed
Category:Timelines of publications. Or maybe we could use the more inclusive
Category:Timelines of literary works? I think these would clarify the intended purpose better.
SFB00:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Sillyfolkboy:Thank you for your feedback. As per your suggestion, the category's parent is
Category:Timelines. The semantical difference between timeline and chronology is that a timeline typically denotes "key events" only, whilst the term "chronology" is more inclusive and expansive. Accordingly I am now preferring the more inclusive latter term. In respect to capitalisation, I had been unaware that Wikipedia had rules about this. In respect to your third and most important objection, I have already in fact submitted a proposal to rename the new category to
Chronologies of Works of Fiction. I prefer "works of fiction", because this is more inclusive than "publications" or "literary works", principally because it includes film material as well.
Joe Gatt (
talk)
01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Joe Gatt: That's all cool with me. I think you may be on to something with chronology being different from a timeline. There may be some value in something between a full history and a bare timeline, though I'm not entirely sure what form such chronologies would take. Just to add to the conversation,
Category:Chronological summaries of the Olympics is in existence already.
SFB18:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes, I think that it is better to match up the names. Also, Timelines in fiction is clearer, and not as ambiguous than Fictional timelines.
Joe Gatt (
talk)
20:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Association football outfield players who have played as goalkeeper
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I've added this category to a few articles myself, but on reflection I now believe that this category is trivial, non-defining and unwarranted. It should be deleted in my opinion.
JMHamo (
talk)
20:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete especially because it's including outfield players put in net for technical reasons, rather than them being true goalkeepers. These one-off emergency decisions are hardly defining of a player. Often an entirely different player could easily have been put in net were the scenario slightly different.
SFB23:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - as impossible to precisely state the inclusion criteria for this category inherently. One minute in a training game when they were 9 years old? Going in goal in the World Cup final? Both would seem to be sufficient to justify this category but one is clearly notable, the other inherently trivial.
Fenix down (
talk)
19:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - the fact that an outfield player had to go in goal for potentially just a few minutes after a keeper was injured/sent off is completely trivial and in no way a defining characteristic --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
12:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kraft Nabisco Championship
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete Although this does mess with the history. I would prefer to avoid the cyclical sponsor title name by using
Dinah Shore Tournament or similar, but I'm unsure if the usage is prevalent enough to justify it. Another sports history destroyed by commercial concerns.
SFB23:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Oakes, North Dakota
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Non-governmental execution type killing
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. The nominator both created the category and then mid-discussion emptied it and moved everything to
Category:Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This made the discussion quite difficult to understand as it was ongoing and difficult for me as a closer to trace everything that happened. It would be much better if once a category is nominated for deletion, the discussion be allowed to proceed without emptying it or renaming it or recategorizing all of the content within it.Good Ol’factory(talk)00:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Regulars here will know that I have raised a few ISIL related discussions. This one again brings two previous topics -
Jihadi John and
The Beatles (terrorist cell) to one thread. The problem is that they were previously categorised in
Category:Executioners but, as previously mentioned, we maintain that execution implies legality while words like murder imply illegality. I am happy for the title to remain as it is but, having seen previous ideas, thought to raise this in case of positive developments.
Gregkaye✍♪10:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename and rework as
Category:ISIL beheadings so we can group in the related material, such as
2014 ISIL beheading incidents and
Alan Henning. I don't think classifying this small group of people in the executioners tree is that important. See how we avoid this categorisation for people like
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The poorness of the current category title illustrates the fact we're trying to shoe-horn these people into the execution tree. The actions of ISIL Beatles/Jihadi John are not profoundly different from other terrorists carrying out similar violence in the region, albeit not against Westerners. The terrorist category is distinction enough – the video beheadings are very obvious examples of terrorism in its purest form.
SFB23:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
SFB the option on the other side of this might be
Category:ISIL murders but this would use Wikipedia's voice to indicate illegality in the same way as executions indicates legality.
The ISIL killings cannot be directly described as executions. Another option would be to delete the category and to add a comment on
Category:Executions That the category such as that it "only applies to governmentally sanctioned executions". That is just a preliminary idea of wording
Gregkaye✍♪06:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - ISIL Beatles and Jihadi John are already categorized as ISIL members, and there is no need for a separate category containing just them. The current title is extremely misguided, since it ignores the fact that virtually every major violent conflict involving a non-State party has seen execution-type killings... it just so happens that it's not usually videotaped and posted to social media. --
Black Falcon(
talk)01:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Please do not empty or rename a category (
diff1 1,
diff 2) while a discussion is ongoing. It undermines the discussion and makes it very difficult for any uninvolved editor to make sense of the arguments. --
Black Falcon(
talk)20:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jihadist organizations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Jihadist as in
Jihadism is a
Value Laden Label. In English various extremist groups seek recognition as being labeled as Jihadist in the same way as in Arabic the same organisations seek to be called
Mujahideen. These two concepts are basically the same and, while extremist organizations seek this designation, Western governments have policies not to use these terms.
There is also confusion in regards to readers potentially conceived ideas that jihadism is necessarily associated to
jihad. Please see:
I am most familiar with the situation of the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant where, in similarity to al-Quaeda following 9/11, many Muslims regard the group as nothing to do with Islam let alone jihad. (The scriptural concept of jihad is defence). The news group Al-Jazeera regularly describe ISIL/ISIS/Daesh as a self declared or self-described jihadist group.
In summary, extremist groups describe themselves as jihadist. Governments typically refuse to use this terminology. The media use a variety or words such as extremist and other value-laden labels like terrorist. Large contingents of Islam say extremism is nothing to do with jihad.
I don't think we should use Wikipedia's voice to describe all categorised groups as jihadist and think an NPOV view would be to describe organizations or groups described as jihadist.
Comment@
Gregkaye: I don't really see how the proposed name solves the issue you raise – essentially dividing
jihad from
jihadism like we do for
Category:Islamist groups and
Category:Islamic organizations (if I've read this correctly?). Ultimately the new names would still describe the groups as jihadist, albeit with the difference of saying "these groups are described as jihadist" rather than "these groups are jihadist". I don't think that's a useful distinction here. I also don't think it useful to dismiss such groups as not Jihad-based just because of the Islamic Supreme Council of America's scriptural reading is different. The groups usually self-identify as jihad advocates, so it makes sense to categorise them as so as an extreme interpretation of jihad is still jihad in a sense. I'm struggling for a better approach though. I don't think the solution found for
Category:Organizations designated as terrorist is actually a good one as it means we cannot easily distinguish groups that use terrorism as a primary tactic from groups designated as terrorist but who largely do not rely on terrorist tactics (e.g.
Kurdistan Workers' Party which has mostly violently targeted opposing figures of power).
SFB23:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
SFB the difference is that it doesn't use Wikipedia's voice to describe the groups as "jihadist". The parallel category that you mention is relevant and jihadism should be handled with equal care. Only when Wikipedia decides to describe a category as Terrorist organizations should it have a category on Jihadist organizations.
Gregkaye✍♪23:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I acknowledge the current category has issues, but "organizations described as jihadist" immediately raises the questions: "described by whom"? --
Black Falcon(
talk)01:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Black Falcon This is not an issue. "Jihadist" is an
adjective, and yet in this case it is also a value laden label. To answer your question, everyone. Everyone who describes a group as jihadist, describes that group as jihadist. It is a description and a value laden lable which, if we can help it, we should not use in Wikipedia's voice. Please reconsider your opposition.
Gregkaye✍♪05:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose as set out so well by BlackFalcon. However, I would support a category for organisations who self-describe as jihadist (or perhaps, define the current category so that it only includes organisations that self-describe as jihadist.
AndrewRT(
Talk)
21:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Black FalconAndrewRT, agreed. However, as
mujahideen is the parallel term used in Arabic which is most commonly used in the self description of the groups concerned I'd suggest "
organizations self-described as mujahideen or similar". In the first case a note might be added to extend meanings to cover a wider range of jihad based terminologies and this kind of note might similarly be attached to "organisations that self-describe as jihadist". Alternatively a simple use might be made of "organizations self-described with jihad based terminologies" or "organizations self-described by use of jihad based terminologies". Any of these will get past the problem of Wikipedia's direct application of a value laden label. Some change is needed.
Gregkaye✍♪12:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. A cleanup is necessary here, especially since the title of this page duplicates the title of another page, namely
List of timelines in fiction. Fictional timelines should go to
List of timelines in fiction, whereas this page should be renamed "Chronology of Fictional Works", and should contain chronologies related to the publication of works of fiction only.
Joe Gatt (
talk)
22:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose My alternate suggestion instead: This is not for chronologies of fictional works, this is for fictional chronologies from work of fiction . A real chronology of works of fiction can be a publication history. The works themselves are not fictional, unlike works within fiction such as The Grasshopper Lies Heavy ( a fictional work of fiction ) or Chuck Shurley's Supernatural ( a fictional historical work in a work of fiction ), it is for works of fiction that exist in reality like Star Trek;
Category:Fictional chronologies for works of fiction should solve the problems. OR the alternate suggestion above
Category:Timelines of fictional events is also acceptable to me. --
67.70.35.44 (
talk)
07:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)reply
What is the point of having two pages for the same thing, namely
Category:Fictional timelines and
List of timelines in fiction ? What is the difference between the two ? I am not trying to destroy the "in-world fictional timelines" ! But why have two duplicate pages for it, and NONE for the non-fictional evolution of fictional lore ? In my opinion the evolution of fictional lore deserves a place on Wikipedia too.
In my opinion, fictional chronologies from work of fiction should indeed have their own category page, of course.
List of timelines in fiction should be a category page in its own right. And the evolution of fictional lore likewise also deserves its own category page, in my opinion. The academic study of literature and art is based on its chronological development and evolution, after all.
Or perhaps, one could maybe even consider starting a wikiproject in respect to the development and evolution of fictional lore. Why not?
Joe Gatt (
talk)
00:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I have carried out the above stated exercise successfully, regarding the creation of a new category for artistic works chronologies, and accordingly I would like to respectfully withdraw my original request to rename
Category:Fictional timelines. Best regards to all participants of this interesting discussion.
Joe Gatt (
talk)
23:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Joe Gatt: I think the newly titled category it problematic too on several fronts. First, there is no
Category:Chronologies category – it's useful to tie a category into a descending tree;
Category:Timelines is more usefulinstead. Second, non-proper nouns aren't capitalised in categories (neither in article headings). Third and most importantly, I don't think it successfully distinguishes the two – I think a "chronology of a fictional work" could be interpreted as the chronology in a fictional work. It was on this basis that I proposed
Category:Timelines of publications. Or maybe we could use the more inclusive
Category:Timelines of literary works? I think these would clarify the intended purpose better.
SFB00:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Sillyfolkboy:Thank you for your feedback. As per your suggestion, the category's parent is
Category:Timelines. The semantical difference between timeline and chronology is that a timeline typically denotes "key events" only, whilst the term "chronology" is more inclusive and expansive. Accordingly I am now preferring the more inclusive latter term. In respect to capitalisation, I had been unaware that Wikipedia had rules about this. In respect to your third and most important objection, I have already in fact submitted a proposal to rename the new category to
Chronologies of Works of Fiction. I prefer "works of fiction", because this is more inclusive than "publications" or "literary works", principally because it includes film material as well.
Joe Gatt (
talk)
01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Joe Gatt: That's all cool with me. I think you may be on to something with chronology being different from a timeline. There may be some value in something between a full history and a bare timeline, though I'm not entirely sure what form such chronologies would take. Just to add to the conversation,
Category:Chronological summaries of the Olympics is in existence already.
SFB18:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes, I think that it is better to match up the names. Also, Timelines in fiction is clearer, and not as ambiguous than Fictional timelines.
Joe Gatt (
talk)
20:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Association football outfield players who have played as goalkeeper
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I've added this category to a few articles myself, but on reflection I now believe that this category is trivial, non-defining and unwarranted. It should be deleted in my opinion.
JMHamo (
talk)
20:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete especially because it's including outfield players put in net for technical reasons, rather than them being true goalkeepers. These one-off emergency decisions are hardly defining of a player. Often an entirely different player could easily have been put in net were the scenario slightly different.
SFB23:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - as impossible to precisely state the inclusion criteria for this category inherently. One minute in a training game when they were 9 years old? Going in goal in the World Cup final? Both would seem to be sufficient to justify this category but one is clearly notable, the other inherently trivial.
Fenix down (
talk)
19:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - the fact that an outfield player had to go in goal for potentially just a few minutes after a keeper was injured/sent off is completely trivial and in no way a defining characteristic --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
12:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kraft Nabisco Championship
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete Although this does mess with the history. I would prefer to avoid the cyclical sponsor title name by using
Dinah Shore Tournament or similar, but I'm unsure if the usage is prevalent enough to justify it. Another sports history destroyed by commercial concerns.
SFB23:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Oakes, North Dakota
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Non-governmental execution type killing
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. The nominator both created the category and then mid-discussion emptied it and moved everything to
Category:Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This made the discussion quite difficult to understand as it was ongoing and difficult for me as a closer to trace everything that happened. It would be much better if once a category is nominated for deletion, the discussion be allowed to proceed without emptying it or renaming it or recategorizing all of the content within it.Good Ol’factory(talk)00:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Regulars here will know that I have raised a few ISIL related discussions. This one again brings two previous topics -
Jihadi John and
The Beatles (terrorist cell) to one thread. The problem is that they were previously categorised in
Category:Executioners but, as previously mentioned, we maintain that execution implies legality while words like murder imply illegality. I am happy for the title to remain as it is but, having seen previous ideas, thought to raise this in case of positive developments.
Gregkaye✍♪10:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename and rework as
Category:ISIL beheadings so we can group in the related material, such as
2014 ISIL beheading incidents and
Alan Henning. I don't think classifying this small group of people in the executioners tree is that important. See how we avoid this categorisation for people like
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The poorness of the current category title illustrates the fact we're trying to shoe-horn these people into the execution tree. The actions of ISIL Beatles/Jihadi John are not profoundly different from other terrorists carrying out similar violence in the region, albeit not against Westerners. The terrorist category is distinction enough – the video beheadings are very obvious examples of terrorism in its purest form.
SFB23:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
SFB the option on the other side of this might be
Category:ISIL murders but this would use Wikipedia's voice to indicate illegality in the same way as executions indicates legality.
The ISIL killings cannot be directly described as executions. Another option would be to delete the category and to add a comment on
Category:Executions That the category such as that it "only applies to governmentally sanctioned executions". That is just a preliminary idea of wording
Gregkaye✍♪06:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - ISIL Beatles and Jihadi John are already categorized as ISIL members, and there is no need for a separate category containing just them. The current title is extremely misguided, since it ignores the fact that virtually every major violent conflict involving a non-State party has seen execution-type killings... it just so happens that it's not usually videotaped and posted to social media. --
Black Falcon(
talk)01:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Please do not empty or rename a category (
diff1 1,
diff 2) while a discussion is ongoing. It undermines the discussion and makes it very difficult for any uninvolved editor to make sense of the arguments. --
Black Falcon(
talk)20:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jihadist organizations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Jihadist as in
Jihadism is a
Value Laden Label. In English various extremist groups seek recognition as being labeled as Jihadist in the same way as in Arabic the same organisations seek to be called
Mujahideen. These two concepts are basically the same and, while extremist organizations seek this designation, Western governments have policies not to use these terms.
There is also confusion in regards to readers potentially conceived ideas that jihadism is necessarily associated to
jihad. Please see:
I am most familiar with the situation of the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant where, in similarity to al-Quaeda following 9/11, many Muslims regard the group as nothing to do with Islam let alone jihad. (The scriptural concept of jihad is defence). The news group Al-Jazeera regularly describe ISIL/ISIS/Daesh as a self declared or self-described jihadist group.
In summary, extremist groups describe themselves as jihadist. Governments typically refuse to use this terminology. The media use a variety or words such as extremist and other value-laden labels like terrorist. Large contingents of Islam say extremism is nothing to do with jihad.
I don't think we should use Wikipedia's voice to describe all categorised groups as jihadist and think an NPOV view would be to describe organizations or groups described as jihadist.
Comment@
Gregkaye: I don't really see how the proposed name solves the issue you raise – essentially dividing
jihad from
jihadism like we do for
Category:Islamist groups and
Category:Islamic organizations (if I've read this correctly?). Ultimately the new names would still describe the groups as jihadist, albeit with the difference of saying "these groups are described as jihadist" rather than "these groups are jihadist". I don't think that's a useful distinction here. I also don't think it useful to dismiss such groups as not Jihad-based just because of the Islamic Supreme Council of America's scriptural reading is different. The groups usually self-identify as jihad advocates, so it makes sense to categorise them as so as an extreme interpretation of jihad is still jihad in a sense. I'm struggling for a better approach though. I don't think the solution found for
Category:Organizations designated as terrorist is actually a good one as it means we cannot easily distinguish groups that use terrorism as a primary tactic from groups designated as terrorist but who largely do not rely on terrorist tactics (e.g.
Kurdistan Workers' Party which has mostly violently targeted opposing figures of power).
SFB23:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
SFB the difference is that it doesn't use Wikipedia's voice to describe the groups as "jihadist". The parallel category that you mention is relevant and jihadism should be handled with equal care. Only when Wikipedia decides to describe a category as Terrorist organizations should it have a category on Jihadist organizations.
Gregkaye✍♪23:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I acknowledge the current category has issues, but "organizations described as jihadist" immediately raises the questions: "described by whom"? --
Black Falcon(
talk)01:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Black Falcon This is not an issue. "Jihadist" is an
adjective, and yet in this case it is also a value laden label. To answer your question, everyone. Everyone who describes a group as jihadist, describes that group as jihadist. It is a description and a value laden lable which, if we can help it, we should not use in Wikipedia's voice. Please reconsider your opposition.
Gregkaye✍♪05:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose as set out so well by BlackFalcon. However, I would support a category for organisations who self-describe as jihadist (or perhaps, define the current category so that it only includes organisations that self-describe as jihadist.
AndrewRT(
Talk)
21:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Black FalconAndrewRT, agreed. However, as
mujahideen is the parallel term used in Arabic which is most commonly used in the self description of the groups concerned I'd suggest "
organizations self-described as mujahideen or similar". In the first case a note might be added to extend meanings to cover a wider range of jihad based terminologies and this kind of note might similarly be attached to "organisations that self-describe as jihadist". Alternatively a simple use might be made of "organizations self-described with jihad based terminologies" or "organizations self-described by use of jihad based terminologies". Any of these will get past the problem of Wikipedia's direct application of a value laden label. Some change is needed.
Gregkaye✍♪12:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.